So, what is capitalism? Capitalism, fundamentally, is a series of marketplaces. You can have a marketplace for lemonade, a marketplace for lemons, a marketplace for trucks that transport lemons, a marketplace that fuels those trucks, marketplaces that sell wood to build lemonade stands. However, capitalism of course, as we know, is this either celebrated term or condemned term. It's either revered or it's reviled. And I'm here to argue that this is because capitalism, in the modern iteration, is largely misunderstood.
﻿什么是资本主义？ 从本质上讲，资本主义是一系列市场的组合。 你可以有卖柠檬汽水的市场， 有卖柠檬的市场， 有运送柠檬的卡车的市场， 有驱动这些卡车的燃料的市场， 有出售木头的市场，用来制作 放柠檬汽水的货架。 然而，一提到资本主义， 我们都知道， 它要么是个褒义词， 要么是个贬义词。 要么是蜜糖，要么是砒霜。 而我要说的就是，这是因为 今天人们对资本主义有很深的误解。
In my view, capitalism should not be thought of as an ideology, but instead should be thought of as an operating system. Think of your iPhone. Your iPhone merges hardware with software. Apps and hardware. Now think about all the hardware as the physical reality all around you, and think of the apps as entrepreneurial activity, creative energy. And in-between, you have an operating system. As you have advances in hardware, you have advances in software. And the operating system needs to keep up. It needs to be patched, it needs to be updated, new releases have to happen. And all of these things have to happen symbiotically. The operating system needs to keep getting more and more advanced to keep up with innovation.
在我看来， 资本主义不应该 被看成一种意识形态， 而应该视其为一种操作系统。 想想你的iPhone。 你的iPhone 是硬件和软件的组合。 是APP和硬件的组合。 我们不妨把硬件 想象为我们周围的物理世界， 把APP想象成商业活动， 具有创造性的能量。 而这两者之间的就是操作系统。 你的硬件在发展， 软件也在发展。 那相应的，操作系统也需要跟上。 需要安装补丁，需要升级， 要有新的版本。 所有这些要同步发展。 操作系统需要不断进化， 才能跟上创新的脚步。
And this is why, fundamentally, when you think about it as an operating system, it devolves the language of ideology away from what traditional defenders of capitalism think. But even if you go to the constitution, you'll notice, before the founders even got to the First Amendment -- with free speech, free religion, free press, they thought about patents and copyright. They talked about the government's role in promoting arts and sciences. It's the reason why I could not start a search engine tomorrow called Goggle.
本质上来说，这就是为什么， 当你把它看作一个操作系统的时候， 就会把传统的资本主义捍卫者 所认为的，它是一种 意识形态的看法摈弃。 但是，即使你去翻看宪法， 你会发现，在建国者们 通过第一修正案之前， 关于言论、宗教和出版的自由， 他们首先想到的是专利和版权。 他们讨论的是政府 在推进艺术和科学发展中所起的作用。 所以我不能明天上线一个搜索引擎， 把它叫做“果歌”。
(Laughter)
（笑声）
Google doesn't own Gs, but I couldn't do it because there could be some confusion. So even property rights have ambiguity built into them. And on and on. And by 1900, you have other types of property that come into being.
当然，谷歌只有一个G， 但我也不能这么干， 因为会引发歧义。 因此，即使是产权 也会有不明确之处。 这种情况有很多。 到1900年代， 其他类型的财产开始出现。
For instance, imagine that in 1900, you owned 100 acres of land someplace in the Midwest. It's very easy to see where your fence ends, your neighbor's property begins. Now let me ask you, where in the sky does your property end? Does it end at 1,000 feet, 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet? It makes no difference, because other than the novelty of a few hot-air balloons, man couldn't fly.
比如，假设你在1900年， 拥有100英亩的土地， 位于中西部的某处。 你跟你邻居的土地， 很容易区分开来， 看篱笆从哪里结束就行。 那么问题来了， 你的财产往空中延伸到哪里？ 是1000英尺高？ 还是5000英尺， 或者10000英尺？ 其实区别不大， 因为除非坐上 当时还很少见的的热气球， 当时的人类并不会飞。
But within three years, he could. Now all of a sudden, it was very much relevant whether your land ends at 1,000 feet in the sky, 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet. And you have to have someone arbitrate that. And indeed, that's exactly what happened. And five or ten years from now, when Amazon wants to deliver a package over your house to your neighbor from that UPS truck, we're going to have to decide: Does you property end at five feet, 10 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet? Where does it end? And there is no ideology that will tell you where your property ends. It's an operating system.
但3年之后，就可以了。 突然之间，你的财产范围 是1000英尺高， 还是5000英尺高， 或者10000英尺高， 一下子有了意义。 这就需要有人来进行裁决。 事实也是如此。 5年或者10年后， 当亚马逊要将一个包裹 从UPS的卡车上 越过你的房子送到你邻居家时， 我们就要判断： 你的土地范围是5英尺高， 还是10英尺， 50英尺，100英尺？ 到多高的地方结束？ 没有哪种意识形态 会显示你的土地边界在哪里。 这是一种操作系统。
And similarly, we're going to see this with automobiles. A few years after the Wright brothers figured out flight, human beings started using more and more cars. And all of a sudden, the regulatory system -- the operating system -- had to be patched to all of a sudden address the safety of consumers. That the consumers of vehicles were presenting danger to horses, other pedestrians, trolleys, what have you. And all of a sudden, the drivers of these automobiles had to have driver's licenses, eye exams, registered motor vehicles, speed limits, rules of the road, so that horses, pedestrians, could coexist with cars. It had to be backwards compatible. So a new invention had to basically fit advances from the past. Similarly, five or ten years from now, we're going to see the same thing with self-driving cars -- coexisting with human-driven cars.
同样的， 我们来看一下汽车。 在怀特兄弟发明飞机几年后， 我们开始越来越多地使用汽车。 一夜之间， 监管系统，或者说操作系统， 需要进行调整， 要更加关注消费者的安全。 汽车消费者可能会危及路上的马匹， 行人，有轨电车，等等。 突然之间， 汽车驾驶员都需要拿驾照，测视力， 车辆登记，限速， 道路交通法规， 这样才能让马匹、行人跟车辆共存。 它必须向后兼容， 也就是新的发明 必须能跟旧的事物相匹配。 同样的，5-10年后， 我们会看到无人车 跟传统汽车和平共处。
The reason why this is important, is in 10 years, another thing is going to happen beyond drones and self-driving cars, but you're going to see the most valuable economy in the world -- the largest economy in the world -- is going to be a country run by communists. The Chinese seem to be very good at capitalism. And this is going to have fundamental problems and present an identity crisis for the United States. Because for a long time, free markets coincided with liberties such as free speech, free press, free religion. And all of a sudden, this equation is going to be decoupled. And when it gets decoupled, we might find that democracy, the multitude of voices, actually impedes capitalism because a state that does not have any pretense of limited government can very quickly mandate a regulatory framework for drones, for electric cars, for self-driving cars, for any new innovation where they feel that they can leapfrog Western societies.
为什么这件事很重要呢， 因为在未来10年， 还会有一件重要的事情发生， 它远比无人机或无人车重要， 你们将会看到 世界最有价值的经济体， 世界最大的经济体， 将会是一个由共产党领导的国家。 中国人似乎对资本主义很在行。 这将引发一个根本性的问题， 可能会在美国引发身份认知危机。 因为长久以来， 自由市场是跟公民自由息息相关的， 比如言论自由、出版自由， 宗教信仰自由。 突然之间，这二者分道扬镳了。 当这种情况出现时， 我们会发现，民主，多种言论， 实际上阻碍了资本主义， 因为一个国家，它的政府 如果有强大的行动力 就可以非常迅速地出台监管框架—— 针对无人机， 电动车，自动驾驶汽车， 任何新发明， 只要他们认为可以赶超西方社会。
And this is a very unique thing in the American experience. And this is why it's very important to think of American capitalism as an operating system and not as an ideology. Because when you think about it as an ideology, you can have good politics make for very, very bad policy. That market outcomes and democratic voices and battles for votes can end up stifling progress.
美国从未经历过这种事。 这就是为什么要将美国的资本主义 看成一个操作系统而不是意识形态。 因为一旦你把它看成意识形态， 你就有可能在好的政治制度下 制定出非常糟糕的政策。 那种市场结果和民主声音， 为争取选票的斗争， 可能会阻碍进步。
So over the next few years, as this political cycle plays out, you're going to see American democracy rise to meet the challenges that capitalism poses and modernity poses. And I ask policymakers to think about -- decoupling ideology from economics, and think about how good policy can ultimately become good politics.
在接下来的数年间， 随着这种政治循环的上演， 你会看到美国民主 如何应对资本主义和现代化提出的挑战。 我呼吁政策制定者们好好考虑， 将经济问题跟意识形态区分开， 思考好的政策最终可以 如何成就好的政治制度。
Thank you.
谢谢大家。
(Applause)
（掌声）